Method of treating osteoarthritis with an antibody to NGF

ABSTRACT

Methods are disclosed for treating osteoarthritis in a human subject in need thereof, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of an anti-human NGF antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, wherein at least one symptom associated with osteoarthritis is prevented, ameliorated or improved.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/888,751, filed on Sep. 23, 2010 and issued on Nov. 13, 2012 as U.S. Pat. No. 8,309,088, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/188,330, filed on Aug. 8, 2008 and issued on Aug. 2, 2011 as U.S. Pat. No. 7,988,967, which claims the benefit under 35 USC §119(e) of U.S. provisional application Nos. 60/964,224 filed Aug. 10, 2007; 60/994,526 filed Sep. 20, 2007; 61/062,860 filed Jan. 28, 2008; and 61/079,259 filed Jul. 9, 2008. This application also claims the benefit under 35 USC §119(e) of U.S. provisional application No. 61/246,261 filed Sep. 28, 2009. The disclosures of all of the foregoing are herein incorporated by reference in their entireties.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is related to therapeutic methods for treating osteoarthritis in a human patient in need thereof, with an antibody or antigen-binding fragment of an antibody specific for human nerve growth factor (NGF) and pharmaceutical compositions containing the antibody or antibody fragment.

STATEMENT OF RELATED ART

While numerous analgesic medications are currently available, the adequate relief of pain remains an unmet medical need for many acute and chronic pain states. The limitations of currently available analgesic therapies include adverse central nervous system (CNS) effects, nausea and vomiting, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and ulceration, idiosyncratic cardiovascular events attributed to drugs that suppress cyclooxygenase-2, renal toxicity, abuse potential and others that span the spectrum of drug toxicity.

Osteoarthritis is a progressive, chronic disease in which pain is often a key limiting factor and for which acceptable long-term therapy does not yet exist. Current long-term therapies such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and celecoxib can be problematic due to specific side effects and potential health risks such as GI bleeding and increased risk of cardiovascular events. In addition, these medications must be taken daily to maintain their analgesic effects. As the prevalence of OA in patients aged older than 65 years is 60% in men and 70% in women and continually rising, the search for additional treatment options with fewer associated side-effects is ongoing.

Neurotrophins are a family of peptide growth factors that play a role in the development, differentiation, survival and death of neuronal and non-neuronal cells. The first neurotrophin to be identified was nerve growth factor (NGF), and its role in the development and survival of both peripheral and central neurons during the developing nervous system has been well characterized. In the adult, NGF is a pain mediator that sensitizes neurons and is not required as a survival factor.

NGF activity is mediated through two different membrane-bound receptors, the TrkA receptor and the p75 common neurotrophin receptor. The NGF/TrkA system appears to play a major role in the control of inflammation and pain, since it is upstream of several relevant molecular pathways. Mast cells, for example, are capable of producing NGF, but are also induced by NGF to release inflammatory mediators. Nerve growth factor expression is known to be upregulated in injured and inflamed tissues in conditions such as cystitis, prostatitis, and chronic headache.

Selective antagonism of NGF by a fully-human high-affinity monoclonal antibody (mAb) has the potential to be effective without the adverse side effects of traditional analgesic drugs, since it works through a different physiological mechanism of action. Human genetic studies that show that people suffering from a loss of deep pain perception have mutations in TrkA (HSAN IV) or NGF (HSAN V). In addition, NGF is known to be elevated in the synovial fluid of patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and other types of arthritis.

Anti-NGF antibodies are described in, for example, EP1575517; WO 01/78698, WO 02/096458, WO 2004/032870; U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,601,818; 7,449,616; 7,655,232; US patent application publications 2009/0155274; 2009/0208490; 2008/033157; 2008/0107658; 2005/0074821; 2004/0237124, and 2004/0219144.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In a first aspect, the invention features methods for preventing, inhibiting, ameliorating and/or treating at least one of the symptoms associated with osteoarthritis in a human subject in need thereof, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of a fully human anti-NGF antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, wherein at least one of the symptoms of osteoarthritis is prevented, inhibited, ameliorated or improved. In specific embodiments, the antibody or antigen-binding fragment of an antibody to be used in the method of the invention is a fully human antibody comprising heavy chain variable region (HCVR) selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 4, 20, 24, 28, 44 and 48. In more specific embodiments, the HCVR is selected from the group of SEQ ID NO: 20, 24 and 48. In one specific embodiment, the HCVR is SEQ ID NO:24. In specific embodiments, the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof to be used in the present invention is a fully human antibody comprising light chain variable region (LCVR) selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 12, 22, 26, 36, 46 and 50. In more specific embodiments, the LCVR is selected from the group of SEQ ID NO: 22, 26 and 50. In one specific embodiment, the LCVR is SEQ ID NO:26.

In specific embodiments, the antibody or fragment thereof comprises a HCVR and LCVR (HCVR/LCVR) sequence pair selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 4/12, 20/22, 24/26, 28/36, 44/46 and 48/50. In more specific embodiments, the HCVR/LCVR sequence pair is selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 20/22, 24/26 and 48/50. In one specific embodiment, the HCVR/LCVR sequence pair is SEQ ID NO:24/26.

In a second aspect, the invention features a method of treating, inhibiting, ameliorating, or reducing the occurrence of osteoarthritis in a human subject in need thereof, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of an anti-human NGF antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof, wherein the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof comprises heavy and light chain complementary determining regions (HCDR and LCDR) from HCVR/LCVR sequence pairs selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 4/12, 20/22, 24/26, 28/36, 44146 and 48/50. In more specific embodiments, the antibody or antibody fragment comprise CDRs from HCVR/LCVR sequence pairs selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 20/22, 24/26 and 48/50. In one specific embodiment, the CDRs are from the sequence pair of SEQ ID NO: 24/26. Methods and techniques for identifying CDRs within HCVR and LCVR amino acid sequences are well known in the art and can be used to identify CDRs within the specified HCVR and/or LCVR amino acid sequences disclosed herein. Exemplary conventions that can be used to identify the boundaries of CDRs include, e.g., the Kabat definition, the Chothia definition, and the AbM definition. In general terms, the Kabat definition is based on sequence variability, the Chothia definition is based on the location of the structural loop regions, and the AbM definition is a compromise between the Kabat and Chothia approaches. See, e.g., Kabat, “Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest,” National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. (1991); Al-Lazikani et al., J. Mol. Biol. 273:927-948 (1997); and Martin at al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86:9268-9272 (1989). Public databases are also available for identifying CDR sequences within an antibody.

In one embodiment, the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof comprises a heavy chain CDR3 (HCDR3) and a light chain CDR3 (LCDR3), wherein the HCDR3 comprises an amino acid sequence of the formula X¹-X²-X³-X⁴-X⁵-X⁶-X⁷-X⁸-X⁹-X¹⁰-X¹¹-X¹²-X¹³-X¹⁴-X¹⁵-X¹⁶-X¹⁷-X¹⁸ (SEQ ID NO:53) wherein X¹ is Ala or Ser, X² is Thr or Lys, X³ is Glu or Ile, X⁴ is Phe or Gly, X⁵ is Val or Gly, X⁸ is Val or Trp, X⁷ is Val or Phe, X⁸ is Thr or Gly, X⁹ is Asn or Lys, X¹⁰ is Phe or Leu, X¹¹ is Asp or Phe, X¹² is Mn or Ser, X¹³ is Ser or absent, X¹⁴ is Tyr or absent. X¹⁵ is Gly or absent, X¹⁶ is Met or absent, X⁷ is Asp or absent, and X¹⁸ is Val or absent; and the LCDR3 comprises an amino acid sequence of the formula X¹-X²-X³-X⁴-X⁵-X⁶-X⁷-X⁸-X⁹ (SEQ ID NO:56) wherein X¹ is Gln, X² is Gln, X³ is Tyr, X⁴ is Asn, X⁵ is Arg or Asn, X⁶ is Tyr or Trp, X⁷ is Pro, X⁸ is Tyr or Trp, and X⁹ is Thr.

In another embodiment, the antibody or antigen binding fragment thereof further comprises a HCDR1 sequence comprising the formula X¹-X²-X³-X⁴-X⁵-X⁶-X⁷-X⁸ (SEQ ID NO:51), wherein X¹ is Gly, X² is Phe, X³ is Thr or Asn, X⁴ is Phe or Leu, X⁵ is Thr or Asp, X⁶ is Asp or Glu, X⁷ is Tyr or Leu, and X⁸ is Ser or Ala; a HCDR2 sequence comprising the formula X¹-X²-X³-X⁴-X⁵-X⁶-X⁷-X⁸ (SEQ ID NO:52), wherein X¹ is Ile or Phe, X² is Asp or Ser, X³ is Pro or Trp, X⁴ is Glu or Asn, X⁵ is Asp or Ser, X⁶ is Gly, X⁷ is Thr or Glu, X⁸ is Thr or Ile; a LCDR1 sequence comprising the formula X¹-X²-X³-X⁴-X⁵-X⁶ (SEQ ID NO:54) wherein X¹ is Gin, X² is Ala or Ser, X³ is Val or Ile, X⁴ is Arg or Thr, X⁵ is Asn or Tyr, and X⁸ is Asp or Asn; and a LCDR2 sequence comprising the formula X¹-X²-X³ (SEQ ID NO:55) wherein X¹ is Gly or Ala, X² is Ala, and X³ is Ser or Phe.

In a third aspect, the invention features a method of treating, inhibiting or ameliorating osteoarthritis in a subject in need thereof, or at least one symptom associated with osteoarthritis, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount an antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof comprising a HCDR3 selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 10 and 34, and a LCDR3 selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 18 and 42. In a more specific embodiment, the HCDR3/LCDR3 are selected from the sequence pair groups consisting of SEQ ID NO: 10/18 and 34/42.

In a further embodiment, the antibody or fragment thereof comprises heavy chain CDRs (HCDR1, HCDR2 and HCDR3) and light chain CDRs (LCDR1, LCDR2 and LCDR3) selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 6, 8, 10, 30, 32, 34; and 14, 16, 18, 38, 40, 42, respectively. In one embodiment, the antibody or fragment thereof comprises CDR sequences SEQ ID NO: 6, 8, 10, 14, 16 and 18.

In various embodiments of a method of the invention, administration of the antibody or antigen-binding fragment of an antibody is by, for example, subcutaneous or intravenous administration, or administration locally at the site of disease.

In a fourth aspect, the invention features a method of treating, inhibiting, ameliorating, or reducing the occurrence of osteoarthritis in a subject in need thereof, or at least one symptom associated with osteoarthritis, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of an antibody or antigen binding fragment thereof in combination with a second therapeutic agent. Examples of a second therapeutic agent having applications in the method of the present invention include, but are not limited to, a second NGF antibody, anon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), an oral or injectable glucocorticoid, an opioid, tramadol, an alpha-2-delta ligand and hyaluronic acid.

In one embodiment, an antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof having applications in a method of the present invention is administered as an initial dose of at least approximately about 0.1 mg to about 800 mg. In certain embodiments, an antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof having applications in a method of the present invention is administered as an initial dose of at least approximately about 5 to about 100 mg. In other embodiments, an antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof having applications in a method of the present invention is administered as an initial dose of at least approximately about 10 to about 50 mg. In specific embodiments, the initial dose may be followed by administration of a second or a plurality of subsequent doses of the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof in an amount that is approximately the same or less than that of the initial dose, wherein the subsequent doses are separated by at least one day; at least one week, at least 2 weeks; at least 3 weeks; at least 4 weeks; at least 5 weeks; at least 6 weeks; at least 7 weeks; at least 8 weeks; at least 9 weeks; at least 10 weeks; at least 12 weeks; or at least 14 weeks.

A particular example of an antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof having applications in a method of the present invention is mAb1 (HCVR/LCVR SEQ ID NO:24/26).

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 shows the clinical study flowchart.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Before the present methods are described, it is to be understood that this invention is not limited to particular methods, and experimental conditions described, as such methods and conditions may vary. It is also to be understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only, and is not intended to be limiting, since the scope of the present invention will be defined in and limited only by the appended claims.

Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention belongs. Although any methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of the present invention, preferred methods and materials are now described. All publications mentioned herein are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

Anti-NGF Antibodies and Antigen-Binding Fragments Thereof

The method of the invention relates to the use of an anti-NGF antibody or antibody fragment that specifically binds NGF. The term “human nerve growth factor” or “NGF”, as used herein, refers to human NGF having the nucleic acid sequence shown in SEQ ID NO:1 and the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO:2, or a biologically active fragment thereof.

The term “specifically binds,” means that an antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof forms a complex with an antigen that is relatively stable under physiologic conditions. Specific binding can be characterized by a equilibrium dissociation constant of about 1×10⁻⁶ M or smaller. Methods for determining whether two molecules specifically bind are well known in the art and include, for example, equilibrium dialysis, surface plasmon resonance, and the like.

An “antibody” is an immunoglobulin molecule comprised of four polypeptide chains, two heavy (H) chains and two light (L) chains inter-connected by disulfide bonds. Each heavy chain is comprised of a heavy chain variable region (“HCVR” or “V_(H)”) and a heavy chain constant region (C_(H)) comprised of three domains, C_(H)1, C_(H)2 and C_(H)3. Each light chain is comprised of a light chain variable region (“LCVR or V_(L)”) and a light chain constant region (C_(L). The light chain constant region is comprised of one domain, C_(L). The V_(H) and V_(L) regions can be further subdivided into regions of hypervariability, termed complementarity determining regions (CDR), interspersed with regions that are more conserved, termed framework regions (FR). Each HCVR and LCVR is composed of three CDRs and four FRs, arranged from amino-terminus to carboxy-terminus in the following order: FR1, CDR1, FR2, CDR2, FR3, CDR3, FR4. In certain embodiments of the invention, the FRs of the anti-NGF antibody (or antigen binding fragment thereof) may be identical to the human germline sequences, or may be naturally or artificially modified. An amino acid consensus sequence may be defined based on a side-by-side analysis of two or more CDRs.

The fully-human anti-NGF antibodies disclosed herein may comprise one or more amino acid substitutions, insertions and/or deletions in the framework and/or CDR regions of the heavy and light chain variable domains as compared to the corresponding germline sequences. Such mutations can be readily ascertained by comparing the amino acid sequences disclosed herein to germline sequences available from, for example, public antibody sequence databases. The present invention includes antibodies, and antigen-binding fragments thereof, which are derived from any of the amino acid sequences disclosed herein, wherein one or more amino acids within one or more framework and/or CDR regions are mutated to the corresponding residue(s) of the germline sequence from which the antibody was derived, or to the corresponding residue(s) of another human germline sequence, or to a conservative amino acid substitution of the corresponding germline residue(s) (such sequence changes are referred to herein collectively as “germline mutations”). A person of ordinary skill in the art, starting with the heavy and light chain variable region sequences disclosed herein, can easily produce numerous antibodies and antigen-binding fragments which comprise one or more individual germline mutations or combinations thereof. In certain embodiments, all of the framework and/or CDR residues within the V_(H) and/or V_(L) domains are mutated back to the residues found in the original germline sequence from which the antibody was derived. In other embodiments, only certain residues are mutated back to the original germline sequence, e.g., only the mutated residues found within the first 8 amino acids of FR1 or within the last 8 amino acids of FR4, or only the mutated residues found within CDR1, CDR2 or CDR3. In other embodiments, one or more of the framework and/or CDR residue(s) are mutated to the corresponding residue(s) of a different germline sequence (i.e., a germline sequence that is different from the germline sequence from which the antibody was originally derived). Furthermore, the antibodies of the present invention may contain any combination of two or more germline mutations within the framework and/or CDR regions, e.g., wherein certain individual residues are mutated to the corresponding residue of a particular germline sequence while certain other residues that differ from the original germline sequence are maintained or are mutated to the corresponding residue of a different germline sequence. Once obtained, antibodies and antigen-binding fragments that contain one or more germline mutations can be easily tested for one or more desired property such as, improved binding specificity, increased binding affinity, improved or enhanced antagonistic or agonistic biological properties (as the case may be), reduced immunogenicity, etc. Antibodies and antigen-binding fragments obtained in this general manner are encompassed within the present invention.

The present invention also includes anti-NGF antibodies comprising variants of any of the HCVR, LCVR, and/or CDR amino acid sequences disclosed herein having one or more conservative substitutions. For example, the present invention includes anti-NGF antibodies having HCVR, LCVR, and/or CDR amino acid sequences with, e.g., 20 or fewer, 10 or fewer, 8 or fewer, 6 or fewer, 4 or fewer, etc. conservative amino acid substitutions relative to any of the HCVR, LCVR, and/or CDR amino acid sequences disclosed herein.

The term “antigen-binding fragment” of an antibody (or “antibody-binding portion”), as used herein, refers to one or more fragments of an antibody that retain the ability to specifically bind to an antigen (e.g., NGF). An antibody fragment may include, for example, a Fab fragment, a F(ab′)₂ fragment, a Fv fragment, a dAb fragment, a fragment containing a CDR, or an isolated CDR.

In certain embodiments, an antibody or antibody fragment of the invention may be conjugated to a therapeutic moiety (“immunoconjugate”), such as a cytotoxin, a chemotherapeutic drug, an immunosuppressant or a radioisotope. A therapeutic moiety that is a cytotoxin includes any agent that is detrimental to cells.

In certain embodiments, the antibody or antibody fragment for use in the method of the invention may be monospecific, bispecific, or multispecific. Multispecific antibodies may be specific for different epitopes of one target polypeptide or may contain antigen-binding domains specific for epitopes of more than one target polypeptide. An exemplary bi-specific antibody format that can be used in the context of the present invention involves the use of a first immunoglobulin (Ig) C_(H)3 domain and a second Ig C_(H)3 domain, wherein the first and second Ig C_(H)3 domains differ from one another by at least one amino acid, and wherein at least one amino acid difference reduces binding of the bispecific antibody to Protein A as compared to a bi-specific antibody lacking the amino acid difference. In one embodiment, the first Ig C_(H)3 domain binds Protein A and the second Ig C_(H)3 domain contains a mutation, such as an H95R modification (by IMGT exon numbering; H435R by EU numbering), which reduces or abolishes Protein A binding. The second C_(H)3 may further comprise an Y96F modification (by IMGT; Y436F by EU). Further modifications that may be found within the second C_(H)3 include: D16E, L18M, N44S, K52N, V57M, and V82I (by IMGT; D356E, L358M, N384S, K392N, V397M, and V422I by EU) in the case of IgG1 antibodies; N44S, K52N, and V82I (IMGT; N384S, K392N, and V422I by EU) in the case of IgG2 antibodies; and Q15R, N44S, K52N, V57M, R69K, E79Q, and V82I (by IMGT; Q355R, N384S, K392N, V397M, R409K, E419Q, and V422I by EU) in the case of IgG4 antibodies. Variations on the bi-specific antibody format described above are contemplated within the scope of the present invention.

Therapeutic Administration and Formulations

The invention provides methods of using therapeutic compositions comprising anti-NGF antibodies or antigen-binding fragments thereof. The therapeutic compositions of the invention will be administered with suitable carriers, excipients, and other agents that are incorporated into formulations to provide improved transfer, delivery, tolerance, and the like. A multitude of appropriate formulations are available to the skilled artisan such as those that can be found in the formulary known to all pharmaceutical chemists: Remington's Pharmaceutical Sciences, Mack Publishing Company, Easton, Pa. These formulations include, for example, powders, pastes, ointments, jellies, waxes, oils, lipids, lipid (cationic or anionic) containing vesicles (such as LIPOFECTIN™), DNA conjugates, anhydrous absorption pastes, oil-in-water and water-in-oil emulsions, emulsions carbowax (polyethylene glycols of various molecular weights), semi-solid gels, and semi-solid mixtures containing carbowax. See also Powell et al. “Compendium of excipients for parenteral formulations” FDA (1998) J Pharm Sci Technol 52:238-311.

The dose may vary depending upon the age and the weight of a subject to be administered, target disease, conditions, route of administration, and the like. When the antibody of the present invention is used for treating various conditions and diseases associated with NGF, including inflammatory pain, neuropathic and/or nociceptive pain, hepatocellular carcinoma, breast cancer, liver cirrhosis, and the like, in an adult patient, it is advantageous to administer the antibody of the present invention either intravenously or subcutaneously, normally at a single dose of about 0.01 to about 20 mg/kg body weight, more preferably about 0.02 to about 7, about 0.03 to about 5, or about 0.05 to about 3 mg/kg body weight. Depending on the severity of the condition, the frequency and the duration of the treatment can be adjusted.

Various delivery systems are known and can be used to administer the pharmaceutical composition of the invention, e.g., encapsulation in liposomes, microparticles, microcapsules, receptor mediated endocytosis (see. e.g., Wu et al. (1987) J. Biol. Chem. 262:4429-4432). Methods of introduction include, but are not limited to, intradermal, intramuscular, intraperitoneal, intravenous, subcutaneous, intranasal, epidural, and oral routes. The composition may be administered by any convenient route, for example by infusion or bolus injection, by absorption through epithelial or mucocutaneous linings (e.g., oral mucosa, rectal and intestinal mucosa, etc.) and may be administered together with other biologically active agents. Administration can be systemic or local.

The pharmaceutical composition can also be delivered in a vesicle, in particular a liposome (see Langer (1990) Science 249:1527-1533). In certain situations, the pharmaceutical composition can be delivered in a controlled release system, for example, with the use of a pump or polymeric materials. In another embodiment, a controlled release system can be placed in proximity of the composition's target, thus requiring only a fraction of the systemic dose.

The injectable preparations may include dosage forms for intravenous, subcutaneous, intracutaneous and intramuscular injections, local injection, drip infusions, etc. These injectable preparations may be prepared by methods publicly known. For example, the injectable preparations may be prepared, e.g., by dissolving, suspending or emulsifying the antibody or its salt described above in a sterile aqueous medium or an oily medium conventionally used for injections. As the aqueous medium for injections, there are, for example, physiological saline, an isotonic solution containing glucose and other auxiliary agents, etc., which may be used in combination with an appropriate solubilizing agent such as an alcohol (e.g., ethanol), a polyalcohol (e.g., propylene glycol, polyethylene glycol), a nonionic surfactant [e.g., polysorbate 80, HCO-50 (polyoxyethylene (50 mol) adduct of hydrogenated castor oil)], etc. As the oily medium, there are employed, e.g., sesame oil, soybean oil, etc., which may be used in combination with a solubilizing agent such as benzyl benzoate, benzyl alcohol, etc. The injection thus prepared is preferably filled in an appropriate ampoule.

A pharmaceutical composition of the present invention can be delivered subcutaneously or intravenously with a standard needle and syringe. In addition, with respect to subcutaneous delivery, a pen delivery device readily has applications in delivering a pharmaceutical composition of the present invention. Such a pen delivery device can be reusable or disposable. A reusable pen delivery device generally utilizes a replaceable cartridge that contains a pharmaceutical composition. Once all of the pharmaceutical composition within the cartridge has been administered and the cartridge is empty, the empty cartridge can readily be discarded and replaced with a new cartridge that contains the pharmaceutical composition. The pen delivery device can then be reused. In a disposable pen delivery device, there is no replaceable cartridge. Rather, the disposable pen delivery device comes prefilled with the pharmaceutical composition held in a reservoir within the device. Once the reservoir is emptied of the pharmaceutical composition, the entire device is discarded.

Numerous reusable pen and autoinjector delivery devices have applications in the subcutaneous delivery of a pharmaceutical composition of the present invention. Examples include, but certainly are not limited to AUTOPEN™ (Owen Mumford, Inc. Woodstock, UK), DISETRONIC™ pen (Disetronic Medical Systems, Burghdorf, Switzerland), HUMALOG MIX 75/25™ pen, HUMALOG™ pen, HUMALIN 70/30™ pen (Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.), NOVOPEN™ I, II and III (Novo Nordisk, Copenhagen, Denmark), NOVOPEN JUNIOR™ (Novo Nordisk, Copenhagen, Denmark), BD™ pen (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, N.J.), OPTIPEN™, OPTIPEN PRO™, OPTIPEN STARLET™, and OPTICLIK™ (Sanofi-Aventis, Frankfurt, Germany), to name only a few. Examples of disposable pen delivery devices having applications in subcutaneous delivery of a pharmaceutical composition of the present invention include, but certainly are not limited to the SOLOSTAR™ pen (Sanofi-Aventis), the FLEXPEN™ (Novo Nordisk), and the KWIKPEN™ (Eli Lilly), the SURECLICK™ Autoinjector (Amgen, Thousands Oaks, Calif.), the PENLET™ (Haselmeier, Stuttgart, Germany), the EPIPEN (Dey, L.P.) and the HUMIRA™ Pen (Abbott Labs, Abbott Park, Ill.), to name only a few.

Advantageously, the pharmaceutical compositions for oral or parenteral use described above are prepared into dosage forms in a unit dose suited to fit a dose of the active ingredients. Such dosage forms in a unit dose include, for example, tablets, pills, capsules, injections (ampoules, pre-filled syringes or auto-injectors), suppositories, etc. The amount of the aforesaid antibody contained is generally about 0.1 to 800 mg per dosage form in a unit dose; especially in the form of injection, it is preferred that the aforesaid antibody is contained in about 1 to 250 mg or about 10 to 100 mg for the other dosage forms.

By the phrase “therapeutically effective amount” is meant an amount that produces the desired effect for which it is administered. The exact amount will depend on the purpose of the treatment, and will be ascertainable by one skilled in the art using known techniques (see, for example, Lloyd (1999) The Art, Science and Technology of Pharmaceutical Compounding).

In specific embodiments of the therapeutic methods of the invention, a subject suffering from osteoarthritis may be treated with a combination of an antibody or antibody fragment of the invention and optionally with at least a second therapeutic agent. Examples of a second therapeutic agent having applications in a method of the present invention include, but are not limited to, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), an oral or injectable glucocorticoid, an opioid, tramadol, an alpha-2-delta ligand or hyaluronic acid.

EXAMPLES

The following examples are put forth so as to further provide those of ordinary skill in the art with a complete disclosure and description of how to make and use the methods and compositions of the invention, and are not intended to limit the scope of what the inventors regard as their invention. Efforts have been made to ensure accuracy with respect to numbers used (e.g., amounts, temperature, etc.) but some experimental errors and deviations should be understood. Unless indicated otherwise, parts are parts by weight, molecular weight is average molecular weight, temperature is in degrees Centigrade, and pressure is at or near atmospheric. The statistical analyses were conducted according to mixed Factorial ANOVA with Bondferroni post hoc or Tukey HSD post hoc tests.

Example 1 Study of Anti-NGF Antibody in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee

A double-blind study in which patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee are randomized to 1 of 4 treatment arms (3 active and 1 placebo) was conducted. Randomization was stratified by Baseline walking knee pain score (>7 and ≦7). Each patient received a dose of a fully human anti-NGF mAb (mAb1) or placebo at baseline (Day 1) and at week 8 (Day 57) for a total of 2 doses.

The doses evaluated were 0.03, 0.1, or 0.3 mg/kg administered intravenously (IV). Approximately 53 patients were enrolled in each treatment arm.

Patients of the target population were asked to discontinue their current pain medications prior to the baseline visit and for the duration of the study (end of week 24 [Day 169]). Rescue medication (acetaminophen) was allowed during this time (a maximum of 4 g per day, but not for more than 4 consecutive days). Low-dose aspirin (up to 325 mg/day) was also allowed. The duration of the washout period prior to baseline (Day 1) was determined by the half-life of the medication (approximately 5 half-lives).

Patients received study drug on Day 1 (baseline) and at week 8 (Day 57). Patients were followed for 16 weeks after the second infusion, until the end of week 24 (Day 169), for a total study duration of 24 weeks for each patient.

Safety and tolerability of mAb1 was assessed by evaluating the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) from Day 1 to the end of week 24 (Day 169) or study withdrawal, by patient medical history, physical examination, monitoring of vital signs and ECGs, clinical laboratory testing, and neurological assessments of sensory (tactile, pain, and vibration) and motor (muscle strength, and reflex) function.

The effect of mAb1 on walking knee pain was assessed using the numerical rating scale (NRS). Patients were asked to report the average intensity of their walking knee pain daily for the duration of the 24-week study. Changes in OA status were assessed using the WOMAC (pain, stiffness and function subscales). The patient's assessment of overall treatment effect was assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). The patient's assessment of quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the SF-12 Scale.

Serum samples were collected for PK analysis, anti-mAb1 antibody evaluation, and exploratory proteomic and gene expression (RNA) analysis.

Patients completed the study when they received 2 doses of mAb1 or placebo and completed all scheduled safety and efficacy assessments to week 24 (Day 169).

Target Population.

Eligible patients for this study were men and women between 40 and 75 years of age, with a diagnosis of OA of the knee and who have experienced moderate to severe knee pain for an average period of a ≧3 months.

Inclusion Criteria.

A patient met the following criteria, to be eligible for inclusion in the study: (1) Men and women ≧40 and ≦75 years of age; (2) Diagnosis of OA of the knee according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, and experiencing moderate to severe pain in the index knee for at least 3 months prior to the screening visit; (3) Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-3 radiographic severity of the index knee at or within 6 months prior to Screening; (4) No new chronic medications introduced within the past 30 days. This criterion does not apply to the use of acetaminophen as rescue medication; (5) Walking knee pain levels at Screening and Baseline ≧4 on the NRS; (6) Willingness to discontinue currently used pain medications (for 5 half-lives) prior to the baseline visit and throughout the study; (7) Body weight <110 kg; (8) Willing, and able to return for all clinic visits and complete all study-related procedures; (9) Able to read and understand and willing to sign the informed consent form; (10) Able to read, understand, and complete study-related questionnaires.

Exclusion Criteria.

A patient who met any of the following criteria was excluded from the study: (1) Significant concomitant illness including, but not limited to, cardiac, renal, neurological, endocrinological, metabolic or lymphatic disease that would adversely affect the patient's participation in the study; (2) Patients with joint replacement in the affected knee; (3) Patients with peripheral neuropathy due to any reason; (4) Known Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) antibody, Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), and/or Hepatitis C antibody (HCV) at the screening visit by history or testing; (5) Known sensitivity to doxycycline or mAb therapeutics; (6) Other medical or psychiatric conditions that could, in the opinion of the Investigator or Sponsor, compromise protocol participation; (7) Participation in any clinical research study evaluating another investigational drug or therapy within 3 weeks or at least 5 half-lives, whichever was longer, of the investigational drug, prior to the screening visit; (8) Previous exposure to an anti-NGF antibody; (9) Women who are pregnant or nursing; (10) Sexually active men or women of childbearing potential who were unwilling to practice adequate contraception during the study (adequate contraceptive measures included stable use of oral contraceptives or other prescription pharmaceutical contraceptives for 2 or more cycles prior to screening; intrauterine device [IUD]; bilateral tubal ligation: vasectomy; condom or diaphragm plus either contraceptive sponge, foam or jelly); (11) Women of childbearing potential who had either a positive serum pregnancy test result at screening or a positive urine pregnancy test result at baseline. (Women had to be amenorrheic for at least 12 months in order to be considered post-menopausal); (12) Current or prior substance abuse, alcohol abuse, or abuse of prescription pain medication.

Investigational Treatment.

Sterile mAb1 Drug Product 20 mg/ml was provided in an aqueous buffered vehicle, pH 5.0, containing 10 mM acetate, 20% (w/v) sucrose and 1% (w/v) PEG 3500. Drug was supplied in a 5 ml glass vial.

Reference Treatment.

Placebo was supplied in matched vials containing the same volume of aqueous buffered vehicle (pH 5.0), but with no active protein.

Dose Administration and Schedule.

Study drug (mA1 or placebo) was administered on baseline (Day 1) and at week 8 (Day 57). Prior to IV administration, the pharmacist or designee withdrew the required amount of study drug (depending on the patient's dose and weight) from a single-use vial and injected it into an infusion bag of normal saline for infusion. Calculations to determine the volume to be withdrawn were provided in the Site Study Manual.

Method of Treatment Assignment.

Randomization was in a 1:1:1:1 ratio between the 4 treatment arms. On Day 1, patients were randomized to receive either mAb1 at a dose of 0.03 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, or placebo (in a 1:1:1:1 ratio) according to a pre-determined central randomization scheme. Randomization was stratified by baseline walking knee pain scores (>7 and ≦7).

Data Collection.

Study assessments and procedures are shown in the Study Flowchart (FIG. 1). For early termination patients, all week 24 (End-of-study) assessments were performed when the patient returned to the clinic for the final visit. All visits after Day 1 were scheduled within a ±2-day window. X-Ray of knee affected with OA (semi-flexed) was taken only if existing film was not available within 6 months of screening date. At baseline (Day 1) and on Day 57, vital signs were measured immediately prior to dosing, at 15-minute intervals during the infusion, at the end of the infusion, and 1, 2, and 4 hours after the completion of the infusion. Average walking knee pain was assessed at all clinic visits using the NRS. In-between visits, patients were asked to report the average intensity of their walking knee pain DAILY via the IVRS. On Day 1 and week 8 (Day 57), samples were collected prior to the start of the infusion, immediately post-infusion, and at 1, 2, and 4 hours post-infusion.

Visit Descriptions.

Screening/Day −14 to −3: Informed consent was obtained before performing or initiating any study-related procedures. The following information was collected: Inclusion/exclusion criteria; Demographics; Medical history and concurrent illnesses including any pre-dose symptoms or ongoing AEs; Concomitant medications; The following procedures and assessments were conducted: X-Ray of knee affected with OA (semi-flexed) which was taken only if an existing film was not available within 6 months prior to screening; Physical examination; Vital signs, height and weight; ECG; Serum pregnancy test for women of childbearing potential; Hematology; Serum Chemistry; Urinalysis. After screening was completed and a patient was deemed eligible to participate, a discussion was held with the patient to discuss the need to stop their current analgesic medications for a specified number of days prior to the baseline visit. The duration of this washout period was based upon the half-life of the medication(s). In addition, patients were told that they must remain off their medications for the duration of the study.

Treatment Period.

Baseline/Day 1: At this visit subjects were randomized to a study treatment and received either study drug or placebo. The following information was collected prior to the administration of study drug: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs; The following procedures and assessments were conducted prior to the administration of study drug: Vital signs (measured immediately prior to dosing, at 15-minute intervals during the infusion, at the end of the infusion, and 1, 2, and 4 hours post infusion); Urine pregnancy test for women of childbearing potential; Hematology; Serum Chemistry; Urinalysis; Neurological evaluation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC; QOL Questionnaire; Blood sample collection for PK analysis (samples were collected prior to infusion, immediately post-infusion, and at 1, 2 and 4 hours post infusion); Blood sample for anti-mAb1 antibody assessment; Blood sample for exploratory proteomic and gene expression (RNA) analysis; Instruction in use of IVRS.

Week 18Day 8 (±2 Days).

The following information was collected: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs. The following procedures and assessments were conducted: Vital signs; Neurological evaluation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC; Patient Global Impression of Change; Blood sample collection for PK analysis; Blood sample for exploratory proteomic and gene expression (RNA) analysis; Review of compliance with IVRS.

Week 2/Day 15 (±2 Days).

The following information was collected: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs. The following procedures and assessments were completed: Vital signs; Neurological Evaluation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC; Blood sample collection for PK analysis; Review of compliance with IVRS.

Week 4/Day 29 (±2 Days).

The following information was collected: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs. The following procedures and assessments were conducted: Vital signs; Hematology; Serum Chemistry; Urinalysis; Neurological evaluation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC; Patient Global Impression of Change; QOL Questionnaire; Blood sample collection for PK analysis; Blood sample for exploratory proteomic and gene expression (RNA) analysis; Review of compliance with IVRS.

Week 8/Day 57 (±2 Days).

Patients received the second dose of study drug on Day 57. Prior to receiving study drug, the following information was collected: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs; The following procedures and assessments were also conducted prior to the administration of study drug: Physical examination; Vital signs and weight (vital signs measured immediately prior to dosing, at 15-minute intervals during the infusion, at the end of the infusion, and 1, 2, and 4 hours post infusion); ECG; Urine pregnancy test for women of childbearing potential; Hematology; Serum Chemistry; Urinalysis; Neurological evaluation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC; Patient Global Impression of Change; QOL Questionnaire; Blood sample collection for PK analysis (samples were collected prior to infusion, immediately post-infusion, and at 1, 2 and 4 hours post infusion); Blood sample for mAb1 antibody assessment; Blood sample for exploratory proteomic and gene expression (RNA) analysis; Review of compliance with IVRS.

Week 10/Day 71 (±2 Days).

The following information was collected: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs. The following procedures and assessments were conducted: Vital signs; Neurological evaluation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC; Blood sample collection for PK analysis; Review of compliance with IVRS.

Week 12/Day 85 (±2 Days).

The following information was collected: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs. The following procedures and assessments were conducted: Vital signs; Hematology; Serum Chemistry; Urinalysis; Neurological valuation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC; Patient Global Impression of Change; QOL Questionnaire; Blood sample collection for PK analysis; Blood sample for mAb1 antibody assessment; Blood sample for exploratory proteomic and gene expression (RNA) analysis; Review of compliance with IVRS. Week 1′6/Day 113 (±2 days). The following information was collected: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs. The following procedures and assessments were conducted: Vital signs; Hematology; Serum Chemistry; Urinalysis; Neurological evaluation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC; Patient Global Impression of Change; QOL Questionnaire; Blood sample collection for PK analysis; Review of compliance with IVRS.

Week 20/Day 141 (±2 Days).

The following information was collected: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs. The following procedures and assessments were conducted: Vital signs; Hematology; Serum Chemistry; Urinalysis; Neurological evaluation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC; Patient Global Impression of Change; QOL Questionnaire; Blood sample collection for PK analysis; Review of compliance with IVRS.

End of Study Assessments (Week 24/Day 169) (±2 Days).

The following information was collected during the end-of-study visit: Concomitant medications; Presence of any AEs. The following procedures and assessments were conducted; Physical examination; Vital signs and weight; ECG; Urine pregnancy test for women of childbearing potential; Hematology; Serum Chemistry; Urinalysis; Neurological evaluation; Walking knee pain; WOMAC: Patient Global Impression of Change; QOL Questionnaire; Blood sample collection for PK analysis; Blood sample for anti-mAb1 antibody assessment; Blood sample for exploratory proteomic and gene expression (RNA) analysis; Review of compliance with IVRS.

Walking Knee Pain.

The key efficacy endpoint in this study was the mean change from baseline in walking knee pain using the NRS at each study visit until Week 24. The baseline value was defined as the NRS value from Visit 2 and the weekly NRS value up to Week 24 (End of Study [EOS]) were defined as the average of daily assessments measured during the week. Patients reviewed the intensity of their knee pain with the appropriate study site personnel during their scheduled clinic visits and this information was recorded in the eCRF. Patients were also asked to record the average intensity of their walking knee pain daily, using the IVRS system, during their participation in the study. Daily assessment and recording of walking knee pain was performed at the same time each day when possible. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) instructed the patient to rate their pain on a 0-10 pain rating scale, 0 means no pain and 10 means the worst possible pain. The middle of the scale (around 5) was considered to be moderate pain. A value of 2 or 3 was considered to be mild pain, but a value of 7 or higher was considered to be severe pain.

Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC).

The WOMAC Index was used to assess patients with OA of the hip or knee using 24 parameters in three areas: pain (5 items), stiffness (2 items), and function (17 items). It can be used to monitor the course of a disease or to determine effectiveness of medications. Patients completed the WOMAC (pain, stiffness and function subscales) at baseline (Day 1), week 1 (Day 8), week 2 (Day 15), week 4 (Day 29), week 8 (Day 57), week 10 (Day 71), week 12 (Day 85), week 16 (Day 113), week 20 (Day 141), and at the end-of-study (week 24 [Day 169]). Patients were asked to score each of the 24 parameters using the scale shown in Table 1. The patient was asked to rate each statement on a Likert item, ranging from 0 (none) to 10 (extreme). Pain dimension subscale was calculated as the average score of Q1 to Q5 (Thumboo et al (2001), Osteoarthritis Cartilage, July; 9(5):440-6.). Stiffness dimension subscale was calculated as the average score of Q6 and Q7. Function dimension subscale was calculated as the average score of Q8 to Q24. Standardized total scale will be calculated as the average score from all 24 questions. Change from baseline in the above subscales and the standardized total scale to each measurement visit was analyzed.

TABLE 1 Response Points none 0 slight 1 moderate 2 severe 3 extreme 4

WOMAC parameters: Pain: 1. Walking on a fiat surface; 2. Stair climbing; 3. Nocturnal (at night, lying in bed); 4. Rest (sitting or lying down); 5. Weight bearing (standing upright). Stiffness: 6. Morning stiffness; 7. Stiffness occurring later in the day. Function: 8. Difficulty descending stairs; 9. Difficulty ascending stairs; 10. Rising from sitting; 11. Standing; 12. Bending to floor (to pick something up): 13. Walking on a flat surface; 14. Getting in or out of car; 15. Going shopping; 16. Putting on socks; 17. Rising from bed; 18. Taking off socks; 19. Lying in bed; 20. Getting in and out of the bathtub; 21. Difficulty sitting (for a period of time); 22. Getting on or off toilet; 23. Heavy domestic duties; 24. Light domestic duties.

Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).

The PGIC is a patient-rated assessment of response to treatment on a 7-point Likert scale and was completed at week 1 (Day 8), week 4 (Day 29), week 8 (Day 57), week 12 (Day 85), week 16 (Day 113), week 20 (Day 141), and at the end-of-study (week 24 [Day 169]). The recall period for this scale was 1 week. The patient responded to the question “Compared to a week ago, how would you rate your overall status?” by selecting an option from 1. Very Much Improved: 2. Much Improved; 3. Minimally Improved; 4. No Change; 5. Minimally Worse; 6. Much Worse; 7. Very Much Worse.

Quality of Life Questionnaire.

The SF-12 is a patient-rated, 12-question assessment of QOL. It is a validated, shorter version of the commonly used SF-36. Both scales assess important QOL domains relevant to patients suffering from a wide range of medical conditions. The SF-12 was completed at week 1 (Day 8), week 4 (Day 29), week 8 (Day 57), week 12 (Day 85), week 16 (Day 113), week 20 (Day 141), and at the end-of-study (week 24 [Day 169]). QOL: A. In general, would you say your health is: Excellent (1), Very Good (2), Good (3), Fair (4), Poor (5). B. Does your health now limit you in these activities? If so, how much? C. Moderate Activities, such as moving a table, pushing a vacuum cleaner, bowling, or playing golf: Yes, Limited A Lot (1), Yes, Limited A Little (2), No, Not Limited At All (3). 3. Climbing several flights of stairs: Yes, Limited A Lot (1), Yes, Limited A Little (2), No, Not Limited At All (3). D. During the past 4 weeks have you had any of the following problems with your work or other regular activities as a result of your physical health? 4. Accomplished less than you would like: Yes (1), No (2). 5. Were limited in the kind of work or other activities: Yes (1), No (2). E. During the past 4 weeks, were you limited in the kind of work you do or other regular activities as a result of any emotional problems (such as feeling depressed or anxious)? 6. Accomplished less than you would like: Yes (1), No (2). 7. Didn't do work or other activities as carefully as usual: Yes (1), No (2). 8. During the past 4 weeks, how much did pain interfere with your normal work (including both work outside the home and housework)? Not At All (1). A Little Bit (2), Moderately (3), Quite A Bit (4), Extremely (5). F. The next three questions are about how you feel and how things have been during the past 4 weeks. For each question, please give the one answer that comes closest to the way you have been feeling. How much of the time during the past 4 weeks—9. Have you felt calm and peaceful? All of the Time (1), Most of the Time (2), A Good Bit of the Time (3), Some of the Time (4), A Little of the Time (5), None of the Time (6). 10. Did you have a lot of energy? All of the Time (1), Most of the Time (2), A Good Bit of the Time (3), Some of the Time (4), A Little of the Time (5), None of the Time (6). 11. Have you felt downhearted and blue? All of the Time (1), Most of the Time (2), A Good Bit of the Time (3), Some of the Time (4), A Little of the Time (5), None of the Time (6). 12. During the 4 weeks, how much of the time has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with your social activities (like visiting with friends, relatives, etc.)? All of the Time (1), Most of the Time (2), A Good Bit of the Time (3), Some of the Time (4), A Little of the Time (5), None of the Time (6). This questionnaire yields an 3-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures which are physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), respectively. Change from baseline in the standardized summary scores (MCS and PCS) to each measurement visit was analyzed.

Neurological Evaluation.

1. Evaluation of Sensory function: A neurological evaluation of sensory function assesses tactile sense (light touch), pain sensation (pin prick or other) and vibration sense (tuning fork). 2. Evaluation of Motor function: A neurological evaluation of motor function assesses muscle strength (movement of upper and lower limbs against resistance) and reflexes (upper and lower limbs e.g., tricep and patellar tendons). If changes in sensation or motor function were observed or elicited during the study, they were monitored closely by the Investigator. If these changes became persistent, evolved or became severe in intensity, the Investigator referred the patient to a neurologist for a more comprehensive diagnostic evaluation. 3. Persistence of symptoms: For the purpose of this protocol, “persistence” of sensory or motor symptoms was defined as “lasting for a period of 2 weeks and with no improvement in severity.” Persistence of symptoms for 2 weeks or longer triggered an examination of the patient and a referral for neurological consultation, if deemed appropriate. In addition, the Investigator referred any patient at any time for a neurologic consultation if felt to be clinically indicated. 4. Evolution of symptoms: Evolution of symptoms in any timeframe triggered a neurological examination. For example, if a sensory change of “numbness” or “pins and needles” evolved into more dysesthestic or allodynic sensations such as “burning” or “painful”, it did not matter when it occurred during the course of the study or how long it took for the change to occur. Any patient who experienced such a change was referred for a thorough neurological assessment whenever a change like this was reported. In addition, as noted above, the Investigator referred any patient for a neurologic consultation at any time, if it was felt to be clinically indicated. Clinical neurological assessments of sensory and motor function were conducted at baseline (Day 1), and at week 1 (Day 8), week 2 (Day 15), week 4 (Day 29), week 8 (Day 57), week 10 (Day 71), week 12 (Day 85), week 16 (Day 113), week 20 (Day 141), and at the end-of-study (week 24 [Day 169]).

Pharmacokinetic and Antibody Sample Collection.

Drug Concentration Measurements and Samples. Serum samples for PK measurements were collected at every study visit beginning at baseline (Day 1), and at week 1 (Day 8), week 2 (Day 15), week 4 (Day 29), week 8 (Day 57), week 10 (Day 71), week 12 (Day 85), week 16 (Day 113), week 20 (Day 141), and at the end of study visit (week 24/Day 169). On study treatment days (Day 1 and week 8 [Day 57]), samples were collected prior to the start of the infusion, immediately post infusion, and at 1, 2, and 4 hours post-infusion.

Antibody Measurements and Samples.

Serum samples were collected for analysis of antibodies to mAb1 prior to dosing at baseline (Day 1), after administration of the second dose (week 8 [Day 57]), at week 12 (Day 85), and at the end of study (week 24 [Day 169]).

Use and Storage of Exploratory Serum and RNA Samples.

Exploratory samples were collected to study NGF, mAb1, pain, OA and inflammation. Ribonucleic acid samples were collected for exploratory microarray expression profiling. All samples were coded to maintain patient confidentiality. Remaining RNA samples after profiling were stored for future analyses. Serum samples were stored and may be used for future proteomics analyses.

Analysis of Efficacy Data Key Efficacy Endpoint: Walking Knee Pain

Mean weekly change in NRS of walking knee pain from baseline was analyzed using a mixed-effect model repeated measure (MMRM) approach. The MMRM analyses was implemented via PROC MIXED in SAS by fitting changes from baseline at all post randomization visits in the treatment period up to Week 24.

The statistical inference on the primary efficacy variable, mean change from baseline to Week 24 in pain intensity was derived from this model using an appropriate contrast.

The model included factors (fixed effects) for treatment, baseline-NRS stratum (>7 and ≦7), visit, treatment-by-visit interaction, and baseline value as a covariate. The factor visit with nominal visits has 24 levels (e.g., Week 1 to Week 24).

An unstructured correlation matrix was used to model the within-patient errors. Parameters were estimated using restricted maximum likelihood method with the Newton-Raphson algorithm. Denominator degrees of freedom were estimated using Satterthwaite's approximation. Least squares means (LS-means) estimates at each week by treatment group are provided, as well as the differences of these estimates versus placebo, with their corresponding standard errors and associated 95% confidence intervals. Student t-tests were used to determine the statistical significance of the comparison of each mAb1 dose versus placebo. In addition, data and change from baseline were summarized by treatment group using descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard deviation, minimum and maximum) by visits based on Observed Cases (OC). Graphical presentations will be used to illustrate trends over time.

If the algorithm does not converge or any other computational issue occurs, the mean weekly change in NRS of walking knee pain from baseline was analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) approach. The ANCOVA analyses was implemented via PROC Mixed in SAS by fitting changes from baseline at all post randomization visits in the treatment period up to Week 24. In the event that the mixed model assumptions did hold, rank-based ANCOVA was performed. In the event that the ANCOVA assumptions did not hold, rank-based ANCOVA was performed.

The mean weekly NRS was calculated as the average of the reported daily NRS within the week (prorated mean). If the mean weekly change in NRS of walking knee pain from baseline for a specific week was missing, the MMRM handled missing data by incorporating all available data at any weekly time points for each patient into the analysis and utilizing all existing correlations between the weekly time points. For the ANCOVA approach, the last existing value prior to this week was used (Last Observation Carried Forward [LOCF] procedure).

Proportions of patients with 30% or more reduction (30% responder rate) and 50% responder rate from baseline at each week were summarized and plotted by the treatment group. Fisher's exact test was applied to compare each treatment group with placebo group.

Other Efficacy Endpoints WOMAC Index

Change from baseline in 3 subscales (pain, stiffness and function) and the standardized total scale to each measurement visit was analyzed similarly as for the key efficacy variable.

In the MMRM or ANCOVA model, the factor visit with nominal visits has 9 levels (e.g., Week 1, Week 2, Week 4, Week 8, Week 10, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20 and Week 24).

Dimension scores were computed if at least 50% of items were available within the corresponding dimension. LOCF procedure was used for the missing data imputation for ANCOVA approach.

PGIC

PGIC at each measurement visit, as a multinomial repeated measure with 7 categories, was analyzed as for the key efficacy variable. The model excluded the baseline and the factor visit with nominal visits had 7 levels (e.g., Week 1, Week 4. Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20 and Week 24). Due to the nature of non-normality, Minimum Variance Quadratic Unbiased Estimation (MIVQUE) method was specified in the SAS Proc Mixed to estimate the covariance parameters.

If the algorithm did not converge or any other computational issue occurred, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) model was applied. The ANOVA analyses were implemented via PROC Mixed in SAS at all post randomization visits in the treatment period up to Week 24. In the event that the ANOVA assumptions did not hold, rank-based ANOVA was performed.

LOCF procedure was used for the missing data imputation for the ANOVA approach.

Quality of Life Questionnaire (SF-12)

Change from baseline in the standardized summary scores (MCS and PCS) to each measurement visit were analyzed similarly as for the key efficacy variable.

In MMRM or ANCOVA model, the factor visit with nominal visits had 6 levels (e.g., Week 4, Week 8, Week 12, Week 16, Week 20 and Week 24).

Total scores were computed if at least 50% of items were available. The missing items were imputed by the mean of available items. Dimension scores were computed if at least 50% of items were available within the corresponding dimension.

LOCF procedure was used for the missing data imputation in the ANCOVA approach.

Results Key Efficacy Endpoint: Walking Knee Pain Assessed Using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)

The effect of mAb1 on walking knee pain was assessed using the NRS, as described above.

The results of this landmark analysis, which are summarized in Table 2, indicate that mAb1 provided clinically relevant pain relief for Walking Knee Pain compared to placebo at both the Week 8 and Week 16 evaluations. The effect at Week 24 (16 weeks after the second dose administration) was diminished compared to the earlier timepoints. At Week 8, the 0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg doses were statistically significantly different from placebo at the 5% significance level in the change from baseline. At Week 16, the two lower doses were statistically different from placebo (0.03 and 0.1 mg/kg). None of the doses evaluated were statistically different from placebo at the Week 24 evaluation. As this exploratory timepoint was 16 weeks after the final dose administration, this loss of effect was consistent with the plasma elimination half-life of the drug

TABLE 2 NRS of Walking Knee Pain from Baseline to Week 8, 16 and 24 --- Observed Data Using MMRM (Full Analysis Set) mAb1 mAb1 mAb1 Placebo (0.03 mg/kg) (0.1 mg/kg) (0.3 mg/kg) Week (N = 55) (N = 53) (N = 53) (N = 54) Baseline N 55 53 53 54 Mean (SD) 6.4 (1.69) 6.6 (1.65) 6.5 (1.53) 6.6 (1.47) Median 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Min:Max  4:10  4:10  4:10 4:9 Week 8 Original NRS N 53 50 51 50 Mean (SD) 4.3 (2.23) 3.9 (2.34) 3.2 (2.22) 3.1 (2.32) Median 4.3 3.8 3.7 2.4 Min:Max 0:8 0:9 0:8 0:9 Change from baseline N 53 50 51 50 Mean (SD) −2.1 (2.08)  −2.8 (2.29)  −3.3 (2.61)  −3.6 (2.48)  Median −2.3 −2.6 −3.0 −3.9 Min:Max −6:2  −9:2  −9:1  −8:2  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.7 (0.43)  −1.2 (0.42)  −1.3 (0.43)  95% CI −1.5:0.1  −2.0:−0.4 −2.1:−0.4 P-value 0.0981 0.0053 0.0035 Week 16 Original NRS N 45 48 45 42 Mean (SD) 3.8 (2.34) 3.2 (2.08) 3.1 (2.38) 3.2 (2.69) Median 4.1 3.2 3.0 2.9 Min:Max  0:10 0:7 0:8 0:9 Change from baseline N 45 48 45 42 Mean (SD) −2.5 (2.15)  −3.4 (2.24)  −3.4 (2.58)  −3.3 (2.55)  Median −2.3 −3.1 −3.6 −3.4 Min:Max −7:2  −8:2  −8:2  −8:2  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −1.1 (0.46)  −1.0 (0.46)  −0.9 (0.47)  95% CI −2.0:−0.1 −1.9:−0.1 −1.8:0.0  P-value 0.0229 0.0267 0.0631 Week 24 Original NRS N 33 39 39 35 Mean (SD) 3.7 (2.44) 4.1 (2.42) 3.2 (2.04) 3.7 (2.70) Median 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 Min:Max 0:8 0:9 0:8 0:8 Change from baseline N 33 39 39 35 Mean (SD) −2.4 (2.24)  −2.5 (2.23)  −3.3 (2.09)  −2.8 (2.76)  Median −2.7 −2.2 −3.0 −3.0 Min:Max −8:2  −7:1  −8:1  −8:3  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.1 (0.49)  −0.8 (0.49)  −0.5 (0.50)  95% CI −1.1:0.8  −1.8:0.1  −1.5:0.4  P-value 0.7736 0.0894 0.2804 Model Effects P-Value Treatment 0.0337 Baseline 0.0015 Time <0.0001 Time-by-Treatment <0.0001 Baseline NRS Stratum 0.0120 Note: SD = standard deviation, CI = confidence interval, SE = standard error. [1] The difference between each mAb1 treatment group and placebo in term of change from baseline.

Other Efficacy Endpoints WOMAC Pain Subscale and Function Subscale

The WOMAC index was used to assess patients with OA of the hip or knee using 24 parameters in three areas: pain (5 items), stiffness (2 items), and function (17 items).

The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 3 (Pain Subscale) and Table 4 (Function Subscale).

As shown in Table 3, the baseline mean WOMAC Pain Subscale scores ranged from 5.7 to 6.4 with the mean score in the patient group given mAb1 at 0.03 mg/kg being the smallest. Treatment effect in terms of the LS mean difference vs. placebo in the group given 0.03 mg/kg of mAb1 was the smallest. For the groups given 0.1 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg of mAb1, the LS mean differences vs. placebo were similar and ranged from −0.7 to −1.4. The p-values indicate that the results were statistically significant at Week 8 and Week 16, but not at Week 24.

TABLE 3 WOMAC Pain Subscale from Baseline to Week 8, 16 and 24 --- Observed Data Using MMRM (Full Analysis Set) mAb1 mAb1 mAb1 Placebo (0.03 mg/kg) (0.1 mg/kg) (0.3 mg/kg) Week (N = 55) (N = 53) (N = 53) (N = 54) Baseline N 55 52 53 54 Mean (SD) 5.9 (1.79) 5.7 (1.77) 6.1 (1.75) 6.4 (1.97) Median 6.2 5.5 6.2 6.8 Min:Max 1:9  2:10 2:9  3:10 Week 8 Original WOMAC pain subscale N 51 50 50 46 Mean (SD) 4.0 (1.90) 3.1 (2.05) 2.7 (2.10) 2.6 (2.33) Median 4.0 2.8 2.3 2.1 Min:Max 0:8 0:9 0:7 0:7 Change from baseline N 51 49 50 46 Mean (SD) −1.9 (1.74)  −2.6 (2.01)  −3.4 (2.54)  −3.5 (2.42)  Median −1.4 −2.6 −3.1 −3.3 Min:Max −7:2  −7:3  −8:1  −9:3  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.9 (0.39)  −1.4 (0.39)  −1.3 (0.39)  95% CI −1.7:−0.1 −2.2:−0.7 −2.1:−0.5 P-value 0.0228 0.0003 0.0010 Week 16 Original WOMAC pain subscale N 44 47 44 41 Mean (SD) 3.5 (2.31) 2.9 (2.15) 2.6 (2.15) 2.8 (2.38) Median 3.6 2.4 2.3 2.4 Min:Max  0:10  0:10 0:8 0:8 Change from baseline N 44 47 44 41 Mean (SD) −2.4 (2.18)  −2.7 (1.89)  −3.4 (2.53)  −3.2 (2.24)  Median −1.9 −2.4 −3.4 −3.4 Min:Max −8:1  −7:1  −8:2  −9:2  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.6 (0.42)  −1.1 (0.42)  −0.8 (0.42)  95% CI −1.4:0.2  −1.9:−0.3 −1.7:−0.0 P-value 0.1486 0.0090 0.0488 Week 24 Original WOMAC pain subscale N 38 46 42 37 Mean (SD) 3.4 (2.15) 3.6 (2.30) 3.1 (2.31) 3.1 (2.47) Median 3.4 3.3 2.7 2.4 Min:Max 0:8 0:8 0:9 0:8 Change from baseline N 38 46 42 37 Mean (SD) −2.4 (2.19)  −2.0 (2.15)  −2.9 (2.46)  −2.8 (2.26)  Median −2.0 −1.8 −2.5 −3.0 Min:Max −8:1  −7:2  −8:3  −9:2  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.1 (0.45)  −0.7 (0.46)  −0.7 (0.47)  95% CI −1.0:0.8  −1.6:0.2  −1.6:0.3  P-value 0.8648 0.1513 0.1601 Note: SD = standard deviation, CI = confidence interval, SE = standard error. [1] The difference between each mAb1 treatment group and placebo in term of change from baseline.

As shown in Table 4, the baseline mean WOMAC Function Subscale scores were similar and ranged from 5.9 to 62. Treatment effect in terms of the LS mean differences vs. placebo for mAb1 0.03 mg/kg group was the smallest. For the two groups of patients given mAb1 at 0.1 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg, the treatment effects were similar and ranged from −0.6 to −1.6. The p-values were statistically significant for the week 8 duration and the week 16 duration, respectively, but not for the week 24 duration. For the group of patients given mAb1 at 0.03 mg/kg, the p-value was statistically significant for the week 8 duration and had a marginal value for the week 16 duration (p=0.0693), but was not significant for the week 24 duration.

TABLE 4 WOMAC Function Subscale from Baseline to Week 8, 16 and 24 --- Observed Data Using MMRM (Full Analysis Set) mAb1 mAb1 mAb1 Placebo (0.03 mg/kg) (0.1 mg/kg) (0.3 mg/kg) Week (N = 55) (N = 53) (N = 53) (N = 54) Baseline N 55 52 53 54 Mean (SD) 5.9 (1.75) 5.9 (1.83) 6.2 (1.67) 6.2 (2.07) Median 6.2 5.9 6.2 6.6 Min:Max 2:9  2:10 3:9  1:10 Week 8 Original WOMAC function subscale N 51 50 50 46 Mean (SD) 4.1 (2.08) 3.1 (2.09) 2.8 (2.14) 2.6 (2.44) Median 4.5 2.6 2.4 1.5 Min:Max 0:8  0:10 0:7 0:8 Change from baseline N 51 49 50 46 Mean (SD) −1.8 (1.95)  −2.8 (2.07)  −3.4 (2.32)  −3.4 (2.57)  Median −1.4 −3.1 −3.2 −3.5 Min:Max −7:2  −7:2  −9:1  −9:5  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −1.2 (0.41)  −1.6 (0.40)  −1.4 (0.40)  95% CI −2.0:−0.4 −2.4:−0.8 −2.2:−0.6 P-value 0.0037 0.0001 0.0005 Week 16 Original WOMAC function subscale N 44 47 44 41 Mean (SD) 3.6 (2.26) 3.0 (2.21) 2.7 (2.26) 2.7 (2.43) Median 3.2 2.9 2.5 1.5 Min:Max 0:9 0:9 0:8 0:8 Change from baseline N 44 47 44 41 Mean (SD) −2.3 (2.30)  −2.9 (1.78)  −3.4 (2.28)  −3.1 (2.18)  Median −1.5 −2.9 −3.5 −3.3 Min:Max −8:1  −7:1  −9:1  −9:4  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.8 (0.41)  −1.1 (0.41)  −0.9 (0.42)  95% CI −1.6:0.1  −1.9:−0.3 −1.8:−0.1 P-value 0.0693 0.0071 0.0245 Week 24 Original WOMAC function subscale N 38 46 42 37 Mean (SD) 3.4 (2.15) 3.6 (2.35) 3.2 (2.33) 3.0 (2.43) Median 3.4 3.3 2.7 2.7 Min:Max 0:8 0:8 0:9 0:7 Change from baseline N 38 46 42 37 Mean (SD) −2.4 (2.29)  −2.3 (2.05)  −2.9 (2.30)  −2.6 (2.40)  Median −2.0 −2.3 −2.6 −3.0 Min:Max −8:1  −7:3  −9:2  −9:4  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.3 (0.45)  −0.7 (0.45)  −0.6 (0.46)  95% CI −1.2:0.6  −1.5:0.2  −1.5:0.3  P-value 0.5214 0.1499 0.1748 Note: SD = standard deviation, CI = confidence interval, SE = standard error. [1] The difference between each mAb1 treatment group and placebo in term of change from baseline.

PGIC

The results of the patient-rated assessment of response to treatment (PGIC) are shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5 Patients Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at Week 8, 16 and 24 --- Observed Data Using MMRM (Full Analysis Set) mAb1 mAb1 mAb1 Placebo (0.03 mg/kg) (0.1 mg/kg) (0.3 mg/kg) Week (N = 55) (N = 53) (N = 53) (N = 54) Week 8 PGIC N 51 50 50 46 Mean (SD) 3.1 (1.21) 2.3 (1.00) 2.1 (1.10) 2.1 (0.98) Median 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Min:Max 1:6 1:4 1:5 1:4 Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.8 (0.21)  −1.0 (0.21)  −0.9 (0.21)  95% CI −1.2:−0.4 −1.4:−0.6 −1.4:−0.5 P-value 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 Week 16 PGIC N 44 47 43 41 Mean (SD) 2.8 (1.32) 2.2 (0.95) 2.5 (1.26) 2.4 (1.16) Median 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Min:Max 1:7 1:5 1:6 1:5 Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.7 (0.24)  −0.4 (0.24)  −0.5 (0.25)  95% CI −1.1:−0.2 −0.9:0.1  −1.0:−0.1 P-value 0.0056 0.1168 0.0297 Week 24 PGIC N 38 46 42 37 Mean (SD) 2.7 (0.94) 2.8 (1.41) 2.7 (1.40) 2.5 (1.07) Median 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Min:Max 1:5 1:6 1:6 1:6 Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.1 (0.26)  −0.1 (0.27)  −0.3 (0.28)  95% CI −0.6:0.5  −0.6:0.5  −0.8:0.2  P-value 0.8274 0.8091 0.2710 Note: SD = standard deviation, CI = confidence interval, SE = standard error. [1] The difference between each mAb1 treatment group and placebo in term of change from baseline.

For all 3 mAb1 treatment groups at week 8, the LS means difference vs. placebo ranged from −1.0 to −0.8 and were statistically significant at the 5% level. Results of the patient groups given mAb1 at 0.03 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg as compared with placebo were statistically significant at week 16. None of the three mAb1 groups was significantly different from placebo at week 24.

Quality of Life Questionnaire (SF-12)

The results of the analyses from the Quality of Life questionnaire are shown in Table 6 (Physical Component Score) and Table 7 (Mental Component Score).

TABLE 6 SF-12 Physical Component Score (PCS) from Baseline to Week 8, 16 and 24 --- Observed Data Using MMRM (Full Analysis Set) mAb1 mAb1 mAb1 Placebo (0.03 mg/kg) (0.1 mg/kg) (0.3 mg/kg) Week (N = 55) (N = 53) (N = 53) (N = 54) Baseline N 54 52 53 53 Mean (SD) 34.0 (8.06) 32.0 (8.97) 32.3 (9.65) 33.6 (8.82) Median 31.9 32.6 30.7 33.2 Min:Max 19:53 14:57  9:55 16:53 Week 8 Original PCS N 51 50 49 46 Mean (SD) 37.4 (8.98) 40.5 (9.24) 41.5 (8.46) 42.9 (8.43) Median 35.6 41.1 42.6 43.4 Min:Max 16:58 22:60 22:56 22:56 Change from baseline N 50 49 49 45 Mean (SD)  2.9 (6.64)  8.3 (8.18)  9.0 (9.42)  8.4 (9.29) Median 2.1 6.6 9.3 7.3 Min:Max −10:19  −7:23 −9:40 −12:36  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE)  4.4 (1.47)  5.1 (1.46)  5.6 (1.49) 95% CI 1.5:7.3 2.2:8.0 2.6:8.5 P-value 0.0034 0.0006 0.0002 Week 16 Original PCS N 44 46 43 41 Mean (SD) 40.3 (8.82) 41.7 (9.72) 41.0 (9.31) 43.2 (9.57) Median 39.5 40.3 40.5 42.2 Min:Max 24:59 22:62 21:63 26:61 Change from baseline N 43 46 43 40 Mean (SD)  6.1 (8.43)  9.7 (8.78)  8.4 (10.57)  9.2 (10.74) Median 5.7 8.3 8.1 8.0 Min:Max −11:23  −6:30 −8:42 −8:38 Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE)  3.0 (1.72)  1.9 (1.73)  3.6 (1.76) 95% CI −0.4:6.4  −1.5:5.3  0.1:7.1 P-value 0.0854 0.2647 0.0415 Week 24 Original PCS N 38 46 42 37 Mean (SD) 40.3 (9.89)  39.2 (10.39) 40.2 (9.72) 38.9 (9.45) Median 40.7 39.8 41.5 38.2 Min:Max 23:58 18:61 16:61 24:62 Change from baseline N 37 46 42 36 Mean (SD)  6.6 (9.02)  7.3 (10.09)  7.2 (9.54)  4.8 (10.52) Median 5.9 6.5 4.7 3.6 Min:Max −11:25  −10:36  −11:35  −17:43  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE)  1.2 (1.86)  1.1 (1.89) −0.6 (1.95) 95% CI −2.5:4.8  −2.6:4.9  −4.4:3.3  P-value 0.5340 0.5444 0.7759 Note: SD = standard deviation, CI = confidence interval, SE = standard error. [1] The difference between each mAb1 treatment group and placebo in term of change from baseline.

The baseline means SF-12 PCS were similar among the four groups. The LS mean vs. placebo at week 4 on PCS for the patient groups given mAb1 at 0.03 mg/kg. 0.1 mg/kg, and 0.3 mg/kg were 4.4, 5.1, and 5.6, respectively, with p-values of 0.0034, 0.0006, and 0.0002, respectively. The p-value was significant for the group given mAb1 at 0.3 mg/kg at week 16, but not for the other two groups. All p-values were non-significant at week 24.

TABLE 7 SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS) from Baseline to Week 8, 16 and 24 --- Observed Data Using MMRM (Full Analysis Set) mAb1 mAb1 mAb1 Placebo (0.03 mg/kg) (0.1 mg/kg) (0.3 mg/kg) Week (N = 55) (N = 53) (N = 53) (N = 54) Baseline N 54 52 53 53 Mean (SD)  51.7 (11.89)  51.8 (11.73)  51.4 (10.96)  51.3 (11.63) Median 51.8 54.7 53.2 51.6 Min:Max 17:71 27:69 25:68 24:71 Week 8 Original MCS N 51 50 49 46 Mean (SD) 54.2 (9.43) 54.2 (9.01) 54.0 (8.55)  53.7 (10.18) Median 56.6 55.4 56.5 55.1 Min:Max 30:69 33:70 31:67 25:69 Change from baseline N 50 49 49 45 Mean (SD)  2.7 (9.70)  1.9 (9.49)  3.2 (9.06)  1.8 (9.61) Median 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.1 Min:Max −19:33  −19:21  −11:37  −20:25  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −0.3 (1.50)  0.3 (1.49) −0.7 (1.53) 95% CI −3.3:2.6  −2.7:3.2  −3.7:2.3  P-value 0.8169 0.8557 0.6597 Week 16 Original MCS N 44 46 43 41 Mean (SD) 55.4 (8.16) 52.5 (9.79) 53.0 (9.17)  52.2 (10.00) Median 57.4 54.7 54.2 53.7 Min:Max 34:67 25:68 22:67 27:71 Change from baseline N 43 46 43 40 Mean (SD)  3.5 (11.28)  −0.4 (10.26)  2.5 (7.66)  0.2 (8.91) Median 1.3 −0.2 1.4 −0.2 Min:Max −19:33  −38:28  −12:16  −13:17  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −3.1 (1.57) −1.8 (1.58) −2.9 (1.61) 95% CI −6.2:−0.0 −4.9:1.3  −6.1:0.3  P-value 0.0488 0.2624 0.0749 Week 24 Original MCS N 38 46 42 37 Mean (SD)  53.5 (10.09) 50.9 (9.97) 54.9 (9.60) 54.8 (9.07) Median 55.1 53.6 55.3 57.5 Min:Max 16:68 21:70 35:72 33:70 Change from baseline N 37 46 42 36 Mean (SD)  1.4 (9.43)  −1.4 (10.35)  4.5 (8.04)  2.7 (10.69) Median 0.0 −3.1 3.8 0.7 Min:Max −16:31  −27:23  −16:25  −14:26  Difference vs. placebo [1] LS Means (SE) −2.9 (1.66)  1.8 (1.68)  1.1 (1.74) 95% CI −6.2:0.3  −1.5:5.1  −2.3:4.5  P-value 0.0775 0.2912 0.5316 Note: SD = standard deviation, CI = confidence interval, SE = standard error. [1] The difference between each mAb1 treatment group and placebo in term of change from baseline.

The baseline mean SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS) was similar among the four groups. The p-values indicate non-significant results at all time points for all groups except for the group given mAb1 at 0.3 mg/kg at week 16 (p=0.0415).

Summary

The results of the key efficacy analysis showed that the 2 higher mAb1 doses (0.1 mg/kg and 0.3 mg/kg) consistently demonstrated significant treatment effects as compared with placebo up to week 16 on most efficacy endpoints. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for treating osteoarthritis in a human subject in need thereof, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of an anti-human NGF antibody, or antigen-binding fragment thereof, wherein at least one symptom associated with osteoarthritis is prevented, ameliorated or improved, wherein the antibody or antigen-binding fragment comprises a heavy chain variable region (HCVR) selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 28, 44 and
 48. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the antibody or antigen-binding fragment further comprises a light chain variable region (LCVR) selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 36, 46 and
 50. 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the HCVR and LCVR (HCVR/LCVR) sequence pair is selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 28/36, 44/46 and 48/50.
 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the HCVR/LCVR sequence pair is SEQ ID NO: 48/50.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof is administered at a dose ranging from about 0.01 mg/kg of body weight to about 20 mg/kg of body weight.
 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof is administered at a dose ranging from about 0.03 mg/kg of body weight to about 3.0 mg/kg of body weight.
 7. A method of treating, inhibiting or ameliorating at least one symptom associated with osteoarthritis in a human subject in need thereof, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of an anti-human NGF antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof, wherein the antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof comprises a heavy and light chain complementary determining region (HCDR and LCDR) from a HCVR/LCVR sequence pair selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 28/36, 44/46 and 48/50.
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the CDRs are from the sequence pair of SEQ ID NO: 48/50.
 9. A method of treating, inhibiting or ameliorating at least one symptom associated with osteoarthritis in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering to the subject a therapeutically effective amount of an antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof that binds specifically to human NGF, the antibody comprising a HCDR3 domain of SEQ ID NO: 34, a LCDR3 domain of SEQ ID NO: 42, a HCDR2 domain of SEQ ID NO: 32, a LCDR2 domain of SEQ ID NO: 40, a HCDR1 domain of SEQ ID NO: 30 and a LCDR1 domain of SEQ ID NO:
 38. 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the antibody or fragment thereof is administered by subcutaneous or intravenous administration.
 11. The method according to claim 9, further comprising administering a second therapeutic agent, wherein the second therapeutic agent is selected from the group consisting of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), an oral or injectable glucocorticoid, an opioid, tramadol, an alpha-2-delta ligand and hyaluronic acid. 